Note to football player Tim Tebow, his Mom and to everyone else out there in the world:
Just because you experienced something and have found something to be true for you, doesn't make it so, universally, for everyone else in the world.
In fact, this point drives me wild.
So many people going through life judging others based on what they think and believe is "universally true" when, in fact, whatever rules or ideas they're using may well not be at all. It's true for so many things.
So many people think that, just because their life has proven some idea or thought to be true, that this is the way it is for the rest of the world.
It just ain't so.
To wit: apparently, Mrs. Tebow was told, we are told, she should seriously consider terminating her pregancy (read: have an abortion) when her son, Tim, was coming along.
She decided against it. Good for her. Yahoo.
She went ahead, carried Matt to term, gave birth and we're all living happily ever after.
That's her story.
And just because that's true for her absolutely does not, then, as I said above, make this the same case for the rest of humanity.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not crazy for abortions. It's not like I think we need or want lots of these things in the world.
But we do, unfortunately--humankind's history has proven it--"need" the option of abortion.
There, I said it.
They're legal. And they've been legal since 1973.
And get this--some women really need them, for their own personal, serious, legitimate reasons.
But if some women can be assisted in some ways, whether with financial assistance or counseling or whatever so that she could either keep the child or have her/him adopted, terrific! That's great, of course.
Government, especially "conservative" and non-intrusive government shouldn't rule her options and make her have the child.
And to this, I offer a wonderful, simple, intelligent solution for all the "Right to Lifers" out there and that is this: stop fighting RU486 and other new medicines/drugs that could end a possible pregnancy within 24 hours of the possible conception.
Then people could stop having abortions.
Of course, you'd lose your one issue but that's what's really important anyway, isn't it?
You want to have your one issue you can rail about and judge others on.
Posts
Donald and Elon Pull Strings
25 minutes ago
7 comments:
PFlow
Passionate post...we may not completely agree on this, but because I enjoy your blog and don't want you to be attacked by trolls, there's this one thing...Mrs. Tebow's son's name is Tim.
hey, thanks. I always try to do my research and clearly missed that one.
attack they would.
best,
MR
People who make up the Pro Life movement have more than "one issue"!
But look at who I'm trying to explain this too! A pro death zealot who refuses to acknowledge that over 93% of all abortions are because of inconvenience i.e. an irresponsible form of birth control, that when a man and a woman have sex and procreate, they're having a BABY, and that 51 million lives have been extinguished for mostly irresponsible behavior.
Anyway, as the number of babies murdered steadily grows, the more Americans will be sickened by this abuse and will want it stopped. You pro death zealots are your own worse enemies and you will destroy your own insane cause!
Signed Dan Beyer.
Yeah, right, whatever.
The fact is, too many of these people have only that one issue.
Further, check out the statistics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Number_of_abortions_in_United_States
Abortions in America are actually declining in number. They peaked in 1997 and have been declining since.
I go back to my original point--young people are raging with hormones, get all excited and have sex, too frequently, irresponsibly. Deal with it. Get over it. They shouldn't but they do.
If we had RU486, the young woman could take a pill and eliminate the need for a possible abortion, if she chose to not have a child.
Surely that makes sense to people on both sides of the abortion issue.
MR
But then, emotionalism--and not logic--too frequently rules the day for the pro-lifers.
Hence their ability to choose to kill another human with a handgun, in church, on a Sunday morning, in front of a congregation, after 3 3-hour drives to complete the assassination.
Have a great day,
MR
"Hence their ability to choose to kill another human with a handgun, in church, on a Sunday morning, in front of a congregation, after 3 3-hour drives to complete the assassination."
That's funny since only 8 abortion "doctors" have been killed since Roe v Wade. That's one murder for every 4 years in the whole country for that profession. To break it down further that's 1/50 murder in 4 years per state. Or 1/200 per year for that stat. And not all of them are done by so-called pro-lifers.
The fact is that pro-lifers uniformly condemn such killings of abortionists.
To make the claim you did makes you guilty of what you accused pro-lifers of being- emotionalism--and not logic--too frequently rules the day.
By the way, our side is guilty of 8. Your side of guilty of killing 50 million and counting unborn.
Not to mention your side killed far more pro-lifers, your own as well, and others, more than you can ever lay on the pro-lifers. The numbers are not closed.
And yes, those on your side have attempted to bomb pro-life churches and other places with people in them.
It's wrong for folks to bomb abortion clinics, but there is a difference- no one is in them when that's done. Those on your our side has been guilty of attempting to blow up churches, run over protestors with cars, shooting those they differ on, etc.
Does that mean that pro-choicers are into killing those who already born folks the way you accuse pro-lifers?
No. I am simply pointing out both sides have wackjobs.
But if you want to keeping hitting that argument, just remember one thing: those who live in glasshouses...
Well you finish the sentence.
Stats for you:
http://abortionviolence.com/
http://tree-in-the-sea.blogspot.com/2008/05/pro-abortion-violence.html
But there are, in fact, pro-lifers, Scott Roeder and many more among them, who think it more than okay to murder doctors.
Your quote: "To make the claim you did makes you guilty of what you accused pro-lifers of being- emotionalism--and not logic--too frequently rules the day."
No, actually, it makes me guilty of using facts and statistics--hard data-to support my claim.
What pro-lifers have been killed, "Anonymous"? Who are they? Where did they live? How were they killed? What newspaper was it in? I'm not aware of these, if they exist. Even the "Right wing media" (read: Fox "News") doesn't report this.
I've looked at the websites you put up at the bottom of your note and I can tell you a) I can't see any factual, impartial documentation of their reports (e.g., a newspaper connection, etc.) and b) we "pro-choicers" aren't for violence against people like this any more than anyone else. We believe in law, the rule of law and following the law. We aren't psychopaths.
And that 2nd website, the "tree in the sea" site is nothing but undocumented opinions and unworthy of further examination or discussion except to show an example of it's rantings and ramblings:
"In 1995, pro-abortionist Lavern Ward killed Debra Evans, 28, and her daughter, Samantha, 10, then hacked the unborn child out of Debra Evan's body. He then abducted her son, Joshua, 7, and later stabbed him to death. He was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder."
Really? This is your "evidence"? I assure you, even if the above is true, I can tell you "pro-choicers" don't condone such insanity. The person they speak of here is surely, verifiably insane and not a "pro-choicer", to use a crude description. If that site proves anything, it would be my mention of the use of emotionalism, to push the cause. That site is nothing but sensationalist and dripping with emotionalism.
I don't know what you're trying to ask here: "Does that mean that pro-choicers are into killing those who already born folks the way you accuse pro-lifers?"
That isn't a coherent thought or question, frankly.
Final note on this: This isn't a "pro-choice" blog, so you know. I wrote on Roeder's committing murder and how he deserves a life sentence for murder, that's all. I refuse to turn this site into an abortion argument crusade, to be clear.
MR
Post a Comment